Coal scam: Jindal Steel and Power refutes charges against Naveen Jindal, 4 others

In a statement, Jindal Steel and Power Limited has denied the allegations against Naveen Jindal and 4 others and said the Company has done no wrong

Coal scam: Jindal Steel and Power refutes charges  against Naveen Jindal, 4 others
user

NH Web Desk

A Delhi Court said on Monday that Industrialist Naveen Jindal and four other officials of his company allegedly made incorrect claims before the Screening Committee for allocation of a coal block, while ordering framing of charges against them to face the trial.

Special judge Bharat Parashar ordered framing of charges under sections 420 (cheating) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code against Jindal, Jindal Steel and Power Limited's former director Sushil Maroo, former deputy managing director Anand Goyal, chief executive officer Vikrant Gujral and the company's authorised signatory D N Abrol.

In a statement released on July 2, Jindal Steel and Power Limited has denied the charges and allegations and reiterated that the Company has done no wrong.

“We are confident that the truth will emerge during the course of the judicial process/trial, vindicating our stand. The allegations made against the company and individuals are misconceived and frivolous in nature. It is pertinent to mention here that basis of allocation of a coal block in question was the existing and proposed blast furnace capacity of the plant at Chhattisgarh, qua which there is no allegation of any misrepresentation.

The very foundation of the CBI charge sheet is faulty as the Screening Committee, on suggestion of the administrative ministry i.e. Ministry of Steel, and agreed by all the members of the Screening Committee, had decided to recommend allocation of Urtan North Coal Block to JSPL in view of its existing blast furnace capacity of 1.5 MTPA plant at Chhattisgarh,” said JSPL spokesperson.

“The allegations made against the company and individuals are misconceived and frivolous in nature. It is pertinent to mention here that basis of allocation of a coal block in question was the existing and proposed blast furnace capacity of the plant at Chhattisgarh, qua which there is no allegation of any misrepresentation. The very foundation of the CBI charge sheet is faulty as the Screening Committee, on suggestion of the administrative ministry i.e. Ministry of Steel, and agreed by all the members of the Screening Committee, had decided to recommend allocation of Urtan North Coal Block to JSPL in view of its existing blast furnace capacity of 1.5 MTPA plant at Chhattisgarh.

Further, all allegations qua less acquisition of land for Patratu, Jharkhand plant and placing of orders for equipment for less value for Angul, Orissa plant are misconceived as the company had acquired the land for the area and placed the orders for equipment for the value more than, what was mentioned before screening committee, much before actual allocation. Further, bonafide of the company is apparent from the fact of commissioning of 6 mtpa Angul plant in Odisha at an investment of over ₹33000 crore. JSPL’s Angul steel making complex is the largest and most modern integrated steel plant in the state of Odisha.


Thus, it is a frivolous case of CBI where the charge is not made out for the offences as alleged by the CBI.

JSPL has always maintained high standards of corporate governance and always abide by the law of the land. We have full faith in our judiciary that justice will be done,” the statement released by the company read.

According to the CBI charge sheet in this case, the accused had misrepresented facts in its January 2007 application before the Screening Committee, responsible for recommending coal block allocation, for obtaining the Madhya Pradesh coal block and hence cheated the Coal Ministry to get wrongful gains.

The ministry had issued the allocation letter to the firm in October 2009.

The probe agency has named 64 persons as prosecution witnesses to prove its case besides annexing 60 documents in its charge sheet.

The charge sheet has said that in the feedback form, the firm misrepresented or made false claims on two counts -- that it had already acquired 964 acres of land for its Jharkhand-based Patratu project and that it had placed orders for equipment for its Orissa-based Angul project for ₹4,340 crore.

Follow us on: Facebook, Twitter, Google News, Instagram 

Join our official telegram channel (@nationalherald) and stay updated with the latest headlines


/* */